Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Education or Advocacy? Engaging a Hotter World

January 20, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

This winter, I am doing an unusual thing for a professor of economics. Working with thousands of other professors across the country, I am organizing a national teach-in on global warming solutions. Together we are urging campuses and communities to debate an ambitious goal for America: cuts in carbon of 40 percent below current levels by 2020. Events are happening at more than 600 colleges, universities and K-12 schools across the country -- with lectures, faculty and student symposia, debates, theater performances, technology fairs, art shows. And at every school, we are encouraging students to engage directly with their political leaders about polices for a stable climate.

A few of my colleagues wonder: Have I gone rogue? Crossed some inviolable academic line? Not the way I see it. We are alive at an extraordinary moment, one that demands especially from educators, an extraordinary responsibility.

A confluence of biophysical and social processes -- the physics of heat trapping gases, the faltering of the consumption-driven, global economic system, and the re-energizing of our own democratic political process – all this has created space for deliberate human action to reshape the future. As a nation, the decisions that we make -- or fail to make -- in the next year will have profound consequences, not only for our children, and for their children, but in fact, for every human being who will ever inhabit the earth from now until the end of time.

Many people refer to my parents’ generation -- who were raised in the Great Depression and fought and won World War II -- as the Greatest Generation. But in fact, today’s young people must become, quickly, the Greatest Generation.

To hold global warming to the manageable low end, by the time today’s students reach my age -- in 2040 -- they will be bringing an end to the fossil fuel era. Within the next decade, they will have to begin to rewire the entire planet with clean energy technologies; redesign every city on earth; re-imagine the global food system; reinvent transportation. In so doing, they can create tens of millions of jobs, help lift billions of people out of poverty, stabilize the global climate, and lay the foundation for a truly just and prosperous world. This is their profound challenge, and with the stakes so high, they simply cannot fail.

As educators, where does this leave us? Over the coming years, we must prepare young people for the heroic task ahead. This means, across the curriculum, giving them the tools to think creatively and practically, to solve the complex engineering, ecological and social design problems that they must solve in the coming decades. At a recent gathering of 2,000 faculty, staff and students at the meetings of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Education, these topics were very much on the table.

But in the very short run, we have another job to do. As did my parents’ contemporaries, today’s young people must assume the mantle of the Greatest Generation at age 20 -- in this case, not on the beaches of Normandy, but rather in state capitals across the country, and in Washington. For students, global warming is not about partisan politics, left and right, Republican and Democrat. Rather, it will define the actual world that they and their children inherit and in which they will live, love and die. Only young people posses the moral authority to demand the kind of action from our government needed soon: laws stabilizing and then cutting global warming pollution, and channeling tens of billions of dollars into clean energy research. It is their future, and no one else can speak for them.

Over the coming months, we owe our students readings, seminars, paper assignments, lectures, quizzes and exams, colloquia, internship experiences, and co-curricular opportunities that expose them to the vast historical stakes of this political moment. We must equip them to engage in informed and skilled ways, now, with the inhabitants of statehouses and the White House, and empower the voices of young people to help shape solutions for their future.

This is not crossing a line into advocacy. Advocates have the narrow -- and important-- social task of lobbying for a specific piece of legislation or agenda. Advocacy runs counter to education when understanding is sacrificed to political expediency. And yet, from fear of being falsely characterized as advocates, educators cannot now shy away from the implications of global warming science. Almost three years ago, the head of the NASA Goddard Space Research Institute at Columbia University, James Hansen, said this: “How long have we got? We have to stabilize emissions of carbon dioxide within a decade, or temperatures will warm by more than one degree [C, 2 degrees F] That will be warmer than it has been for half a million years, and many things could become unstoppable… We don't have much time left.”

Last year, Rajendra Pachuari, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), the body charged with assessing the consensus science, said this: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

What Hansen and Pachauri meant is without serious action before 2012, a window will close, forever. The IPPC has shown that if we are to hold global warming to the low end, 3-5 degrees F, then emissions in the industrial countries must stabilize and begin to decline rapidly in the next few years. If not, then the best our kids will be looking at will be a global heating of 4-6 degrees F.

And as Hansen and other scientists have been telling us with increasing desperation, the last time the world was 6 degrees F hotter than it is today, sea levels were 75 foot higher and the island of Manhattan was largely submerged. Every tenth of a degree matters, because it raises the possibility that we might cross an emissions threshold that would lock in a temperature increase that would trigger some catastrophic outcome -- not only massive sea level rise, but also, potentially, fire-driven deforestation in the Amazon and elsewhere, or large scale methane releases from the tundra. The full impact of crossing these biophysical tipping points might take hundreds of years or more to be completely felt, but once set in motion, they would be unstoppable.

Most Americans do not know this. Increasingly the public accepts that global warming is real, and scary, but very few people understand how critical are the policy decisions that will be made in 2009 and 2010. Will Congress pass laws that stabilize and begin aggressive cuts in global warming pollution in the United States, and fund large scale investment in clean energy technologies? If so, we keep that window -- for achieving a stable climate in a recognizable world -- cracked open. If not, we dramatically raise the risks that our grandchildren will inhabit what Harvard economist Martin Weitzman has called a “terra incognita biosphere," driven by a swing in global temperatures of ice-age magnitude only in the opposite direction.

For the last 30 years scientists have conducted an exhaustive international assessment, searching desperately for some other explanation then the blanketing effect of carbon dioxide to explain the rapid warming of the planet. It is not solar variation; it is not natural cycles; and the simple carbon blanket story explains the data with frightening elegance. The IPCC has shown that the window to initiate action to hold global warming to the low end is measured in months, not years. And while many political leaders do not understand the profound risks posed by the non-linear dynamics of the climate system, as educators we do. If we do not help our students to engage now in these critical decisions, we will fail them, and we will fail ten thousand generations to follow.

The science is clear; the solutions are not. Political action is needed to lower the risks of catastrophic consequences, but what kind of action? How much mitigation and how soon? How much adaptation and what kind? Can we insure a “just transition”, protecting low income people from higher energy prices, and compensating workers who might lose their jobs? Young people are eager both to debate these ideas, and fight for their beliefs.

Last year I addressed several thousand young climate leaders in Washington D.C., who had gathered there for a weekend of training, followed by the biggest youth lobby day in the history of the United States. Students fanned out across the capital visiting the offices of over 300 representatives and senators. These are impressive young people, among the best and the brightest, the most sophisticated and capable, that America has ever produced. Our primary job as educators now is to help them become – very quickly – the leaders that they must be.

Since Plato’s founding of the Academy, promoting civic leadership has been integral to our mission. Today, training leaders is an unusual focus for educators, buried as we are under piles of papers and the requirements of research. These are, however, unusual times. Three decades of peer-reviewed science, producing thousands of publications, all synthesized by the IPCC, has laid out the extraordinary challenge.

None of us asked for this. And yet, here we are, over the next few years, demanded to show of what grace and intelligence the human species is capable. With the support of educators focused on this mission, today’s young people can carry us towards a stable climate, and a just and sustainable future.

Eban Goodstein is professor of economics at Lewis & Clark College and director of the National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions, scheduled for February, 2009.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Education or Advocacy? Engaging a Hotter World

  • Glogal Warming hits record lows...
  • Posted by Kelly Knight on January 20, 2009 at 9:05am EST
  • I just want to take this opportunity to thank my many colleagues around the world who've spent so much time and energy (no pun intended) on the matter of global warming. So much so, in fact, that record LOW temperatures are sweeping much of the United States. Thank you.

    And for those whose mantra has changed from global warming to climate change, have you ever been to Colorado for more that a day? Climate change is inevitable with the passing of spring into summer, summer into fall, fall into winter, and winter into spring. Mother nature does it every year, and there is absolutely nothing that man ever has or ever will do to change this.

    The concept of Global Warming, Climate Change, and evening out the climate are nothing more than a scientific misnomer and means of wealth transfer from those that have to those that want. It is a ruse, and anyone willing to open one's eyes will see this boondoggle for what it is worth.

  • propaganda as scholarship
  • Posted by DBL on January 20, 2009 at 1:10pm EST
  • It's distressing, but all too common, to read about yet another professor who thinks his political views (about a subject matter far from his area of professional expertise) are so important that he feels it is his duty to mobilize his students to support of them. This is just pitiful.

  • thanks to
  • Posted by Laurie Husted at Bard College on January 20, 2009 at 3:00pm EST
  • We are fortunate at Bard College that our professors, from across the disciplines, recognize the urgency of climate change and are coming out for the second year to participate in the National Global Warming Teach-In. This interdisciplinary response provides hope - our college will empower our students to be part of a solution that will create jobs, reduce wasteful practices and help shift us to a new economy.

  • We are all experts
  • Posted by Jude , associate professor of philosophy at fordham university on January 20, 2009 at 3:00pm EST
  • The first couple of comments here manage to obscure the point at issue. Arguing that winter temperatures this year tell us anything about "climate" by themselves is just scientifically silly, and arguing that the shift to "climate change" from "global warming" is a semantic sleight of hand designed to bolster a "ruse" for the transfer of wealth ignores the many many many millions of data-points in many different sciences and areas of study (climatology, botany, ethnobotany, hydrology, evolutionary biology, ecology, environmental physics, sociology, political science, etc.). Go ahead and think that if you want, but don't use alleged public discourse to perpetrate an illusory, ideological complaint.
    Arguing that Prof. Goodstein is foisting his personal political views on us, and outside his expertise, is nonsense. Climate change is an embracing phenomenon that insinuates itself into all our expertise areas, and the one we all share in being human, a species among many (but soon many fewer). Goodstein is an economist. Is climate change not an economic phenomenon? Goodstein is a teacher who engages his students to conceive of themselves as those who will inherit and hence deal--morally, economically, scientifically--with the effects of climate change. Is teaching outside any of our expertise, we who are teachers? Argue about climate change if you will, but do so substantively, not via diversionary tactics like this. In fact, the teach-in invites you in to a change to have that argument. But the burden of proof is on deniers to show that denial is any more than ideology.

  • Our roles as professors
  • Posted by Jon Isham , Associate Professor at Middlebury College on January 20, 2009 at 3:00pm EST
  • How will historians look back on Eban and his work? As among the handful of leaders in 21st Century higher ed who understood, echoing John Dewey, that the purpose of education is one and the same with our civic purpose. As Dewey understood, to not engage, to pretend (a la Stanley Fish) that we professors can stand apart is to do a grave disservice to our students.

    And the marketplace of ideas gives credence to this view that history will celebrate this work: hundreds of professors answered Eban's call last year; more will no doubt to the same in the years ahead as our nation gears up for this unprecedented - and ultimately hopeful - transformation to a clean-energy future.

    Eban and others like him are the future of higher ed. It is great to see him bear witness to his work here.

  • Bravo for faculty leadership
  • Posted by Penelope Canan , Dr. at University of Central Florida on January 20, 2009 at 4:05pm EST
  • Thanks to Eban Goodstein and the folks putting all the hard work into the National Teach In, faculty across American universities are stepping up to the plate to put education about climate change solutions on the front burner. How perfectly synchronous with the message that everyone has to do his/her part to right the wrongs of our legacy to the earth and our children.
    Faculty, lead!

  • Teaching in a New World
  • Posted by Mary Christina Wood , Philip H. Knight Professor of Law at University of Oregon on January 20, 2009 at 5:45pm EST
  • Eban's essay challenges us to teach to the new world. In a society experiencing rapid, daunting change, there will inevitably be those who aggressively deny reality, as demonstrated in the first couple of comments on this blog. As teachers, we cannot let this distract us from the urgent task of preparing our students for the new world ahead. Climate transcends every discipline, and creates opportunity for every teacher. At my own institution the entire first year class of students will participate in a climate teach-in. The real challenge for teachers is to present the reality of climate crisis -- frightening to say the least -- while at the same time inspiring our students to face the new world with courage, resolve, ingenuity, and hope. Eban's essay is a beacon for teachers nationwide.

  • On Advocacy
  • Posted by Peter Jacques at University of Central Florida on January 21, 2009 at 12:40am EST
  • Recently we have seen some skeptics say that the term "climate change" has been quietly replaced through subterfuge for global warming because of a cooler recent couple years (this year, according to GISS is the coolest since...wait for it... 2000). But, the twist is that Frank Luntz, the Republican strategist, is famous for attempting to change the term from global warming to climate change because it sounded less threatening, and he also said that the strategy for conservatives should be to emphasize the uncertainty and to consistently cast doubt on decades of CC theory while mounting a campaign to argue the "science is not settled". The Luntz program was open and admitted propaganda in the sense that it was made to disseminate the doctrine of a coherent and consistent conservative resistance that he called all candidates of that election to adhere to against climate change. Notice the complaints about redistribution of wealth, the resistance to regulation, liability, and responsibility in the discourse, none of which are scientific concerns against CC. Rather they are doctrinaire and teological rejections based on what CC means and who it threatens. Prof. Goodstein challenges us with the idea that we can not rest on a lazy sense that all claims are equally valid nor all actions equally just or efficacious, and that some propositions are important for our lives together -- the public good. Given this, it is a duty to public service that the professorate use our voice and refuse to be disciplined into quiet remorse.

    Last week in the journal Science, a report indicated that CC could reduce food yields in tropical and subtropical areas (where 3 billion people, mostly poor, live) by 20-40 percent.

    "One day
    the apolitical
    intellectuals
    of my country
    will be interrogated
    by the simplest of our people.

    the will be asked
    what they did
    when their nation died out
    slowly,
    like a sweet fire,
    small and alone.

    ...

    They'll be askes nothing
    about their absurd
    justifications,
    born in the shadow
    of the total lie.

    On that day
    the simple men will come.
    Those who had no place in the books and poems
    of the apolitical intellectuals,
    but daily delivered their bread and milk,
    their tortillas and eggss,
    those who mended their clothes,
    those who drove their cars,
    who cared for thier doges and gardens
    and worked for them, and they'll ask:

    "What did yoiu do when the poor suffered,
    when the tenderness and life burned out in them?"

    Apolitical intellectuals
    of my sweet country,
    youi will not ba able to answer.

    A vulture of silence
    will eat your gut.
    Your own misery
    will pick at your soul.
    And you will be mute in your shame.

    "Apolitical Intellectuals" by Otto Rene Castillo, trans. Margaret Randall. 1994

  • scholarship, advocacy and critical thought
  • Posted by Dallas Burtraw on January 21, 2009 at 3:15pm EST
  • I want to thank Professor Goodstein for framing climate change in a way that can motivate students and scholars to reach to their highest abilities. A recognition of social challenges is crucial for social science (including economics) to offer something more than incidental commentary on the events of the day.

    There remains plenty of opportunity for debate about the physical nature and directoin of a changing climate and the way that society should respond. Nonetheless, the vast body of scientific opinion is united now in the feeling that the problem is severe and urgent. We must be talking about this to our students and in our scholarly work, or run the risk of irrelevance and of abandoning the mission of service that should be part of the academy.

  • Are there any actual scientists left out there?
  • Posted by DFS on January 21, 2009 at 6:00pm EST
  • Why must we believe in global warming?

    Follow the money.

  • Freezing in Michigan
  • Posted by Frank on January 22, 2009 at 8:46am EST
  • How inconvenient that during one of the coldest winters in recent history, a "preach-in" on global warming will be held. Ma Nature is so unpredictable.

    The phrase "teach-in" has little to do with teaching. It is a stereotype for one politicized group to give its one-sided view of the world.

    The "educators" behind this would be more believable if their senators (guess which political party) did not threaten their loyal opponents with threats of increased regulatory and legislative scrutiny. That only hardens the loyal opponents.

    Reasonable persons are concerned about the environment; Reagan was a conservationist. They also understand priorities -- e.g., the Fannie/Freddie plutocratic mess vs. a complex matter that was horribly over-hyped and now lacks believability.

    Why not a "teach-in" about how and why issues are over-hyped?

  • Go Ask the Polar Bears
  • Posted by cts on January 23, 2009 at 10:40am EST
  • Science is all about facts as evidenced by observable phenomena. It is a fact that global warming is underway (and is accelerating). If there is any 'hype' to this, it is largely born of desperation; the facts have been ignored for far too long and our world is showing signs of strain.
    And, by the way, if you have been saving up tp buy a beach house, forget the barrier islands off the Carolinas.

  • weather and climate
  • Posted by Andrew Gunther on January 27, 2009 at 6:30pm EST
  • Bravo, Professor!

    Based on the some of the comments above, I hope one of the first lessons at the teach-in is about the difference between weather and climate. People who talk about the cold weather this winter don't understand that climate change is about temperature trends on the order of decades.

    Just as you know if you put a pot of water on the stove and turn up the heat it will boil, so our climate will change as greenhouse gases continue to pump energy into the earth-atmosphere system. You cannot predict where in the pot the first bubbles will appear as it begins to boil, and you cannot predict what the weather will be very far in advance anywhere...but that does not change the truth that the pot of water will still boil!